Prominently published in The Washington Post recently was the below graphic. (Article).

See if you can see what is wrong with it:

“California "became much more ethnically diverse" —The Washington Post is apparently unaware of the definition of “diverse” (but actually they here use Diversity as a code word.)“

Did you catch that?

If not, read the title and caption at the top. Now look at the data in the bar-chart at right.

Still don’t get it?

A Letter to the Editor, published on Saturday March 12th 2011, will fill you in:

Less diverse, not more
The interesting chart depicting the growth of the “non-white” population under 18 in California [“Calif. Latino population burgeons”, March 9] made the claim that in the past 10 years the under-18 population has become “much more ethnically diverse”.

Actually, it has become less diverse. In 2000, the under-18 population distribution was 35 percent white, 44 Hispanic, and 21 black, Asian and other. No single ethnic group constituted a majority. In 2010, the distribution was more skewed and therefore less diverse: 27 percent white, 51 percent Hispanic and 22 other.

In certain parts of the country, such as California, the growth of non-white populations shouldn’t necessarily be painted with the broad brush of “diversity”.

Tom S——r, Washington

Comment: The letter writer uses very restrained language, so the editors allowed this mildly-heretical letter to go through.

Allow me to go further:
The reflexive and casual use of ‘Diverse‘ here, when what was meant is Nonwhite, is instructive. This is Newspeak in action. A better example I cannot recall in my recent reading. The “game is up” in this case; they are exposed on logical grounds. (I’d further point out that the title of the graphic is “Minority Report”, implying a growing ‘minority’ population, yet Hispanics are now the majority. “Minority” is another Newspeak term).

In terms of hyper-PC Newspeak, this clumsy labelling by the Post ranks up there with that vacuous female TV anchor who, a few years ago in a live report, repeatedly referred to blacks living in a specific African country as “African-Americans”! [Update: See the video]

Now, one of Bob Whitaker’s aphorisms is “Anti-racist is code for anti-white”. In that spirit, it is sure fair to say that “Diversity” is code for “Fewer Whites” in today’s PC lexicon. The term “Diversity” is PC-Newspeak, and is worth attacking and mocking as the craven form of social-manipulation that it is.

A final point:
The article itself has a certain snide, supercilious, and celebratory tone. (It shines through, even amid the carefully bland, restrained tone of the Respectable Newspaper style). There is a Dog-Bites-Man nature to even pointing this out, I concede. It is expected from the Left and probably even a good share of the Fox-News Right at this point.

Consider:
A: Diversity is good. (We are told this over and over).
B: “Diverse” is code for “Less White”. (See above).
A+B = Less-white is good. (The logical conclusion.)

Question
— If the Washington Post supports (what it called) this “increase in diversity” (= decline in White population), would it also go all-in, and support 100%-“Diversity”, i.e. the total disappearance of whites from California? And at the logical extreme, would it support 100%-“Diversity” for every white nation

…this clumsy labelling by the Post ranks up there with that vacuous female TV anchor who, a few years ago in a live report, repeatedly referred to blacks living in a specific African country as “African-Americans”!

That’s very interesting. Is there a video available online?

I’ve always disliked the term African-American.

It has no biological meaning because the super-Saharan Africans cluster with everyone in the Middle East and everyone in Europe before they cluster with sub-Saharan Africans.

And then you have that moron Gaddafi using sub-Saharan African mercenaries to murder his super-Saharan African people, going on Libyan TV pretending that the massive genetic difference between his people and the Black interlopers he’s brought in somehow shouldn’t be noticed by the Libyans.

This is the end result of Black Afrocentrism. First they steal credit for things non-Black people did, then they rob non-Black people of their land and lives.

What’s happening in Libya shows the awesome power of misnomers. It really is like if people called both Europeans and Chinese “Eurasians”, and then the Chinese used it as an excuse to take credit for everything accomplished in Europe and to overrun Europe with Chinese people.

The term African-American is meaningless, like if there was a term called “Eurasian-American” which included descendants of every ancestry in the Eurasian continent.

It just is that we’re used to the idea that minorities get their minority-ness from being set against a white majority.

But if we accept the idea that “Hispanics” constitute a meaningful group in California and therefore can logically be said to constitute the majority, then all these above four groups are minorities among California youth.

This is the end result of Black Afrocentrism. First they steal credit for things non-Black people did, then they rob non-Black people of their land and lives.

What’s happening in Libya shows the awesome power of misnomers.

I don’t think what’s happening in Libya has anything to do with Black Afrocentrism or misnomers. Gaddafi’s just a tin pot dictator who needs cannon fodder to maintain his rule so he’s using the Negroids from sub-Saharan Africa. If sub-Saharan Africa was filled with Arabs willing to be mercenaries, I’m sure Gaddafi would use them.

The term African-American is meaningless, like if there was a term called “Eurasian-American” which included descendants of every ancestry in the Eurasian continent.

This is a wrong analogy. African-American refers to people descended from Negroids from Africa. Nobody refers to Arabs from North Africa or whites from South Africa as “African-American.”

Statsaholic wrote:if there was a term called “Eurasian-American” which included descendants of every ancestry in the Eurasian continent

I have heard the term Eurasian used, but only for mixed-race individuals of Oriental-European ancestry. The way things are going, this type seems destined to be the future “ethnicity” of Hawaii and probably an important element of the U.S. west coast.

This group already has an embryonic ethnic consciousness in the USA, it seems. And in Indonesia such an ethnic group already exists. Future racial competition in the USA may be more an interplay of White-Oriental-‘Eurasian’, all in competition with one another.

But this is tangential to your point about double-standards in PC-labelling, which is valid.

In that spirit, it is sure fair to say that “Diversity” is code for “Fewer Whites” in today’s PC lexicon.

That’s an excellent observation.

Actually I like your “Diversity is a code word for fewer Whites” formulation better than Whitaker’s aphorism.

European-Americans by and large just aren’t used to getting offended at someone being anti-White.

Sure, some of them are capable of getting offended on a narrow ethnic level. Some Irish get upset if you imply they’re drunkards, some Italians get upset if you imply they’re in the Mafia, etc.

But it’s very hard with most European-Americans today to get them to feel offense on a racial level.

Part of this is that while all the European ethnic groups in this country form minorities, in aggregate Europeans still form the majority. This gives whites more confidence (or perhaps one should call it hubris?) on a racial level than on an ethnic level.

But even more important is that the white identity has been made into far more of a taboo than ethnic identities have been.

This creates a situation where the term “anti-White” doesn’t currently have anything like the resonance it could have.

In contrast saying that diversity is a code word for fewer whites makes people think without demanding an immediate emotional response which all too often simply won’t be there.

it’s very hard with most European-Americans today to get them to feel offense on a racial level. …Saying that diversity is a code word for fewer whites makes people think without demanding an immediate emotional response which all too often simply won’t be there.

A very valid point.

Thanks for the kind words, SA. I do think Bob Whitaker’s “mantra” is powerful, but you have levelled a fair criticism of it above.

this clumsy labelling by the Post ranks up there with that vacuous female TV anchor who, a few years ago in a live report, repeatedly referred to blacks living in a specific African country as “African-Americans”!

That’s very interesting. Is there a video available online?

— —
The video must be from circa 2005, in my memory. I will try to find it later and post it if I can track it down.

We are getting lots of California transplants here in Texas. People are confused about what race non Anglos are. I wrote at blogcritics “You are what you look like, biracial, black, white, well most of the time” because your federal government has declared that Mexicans are racially white. Nothing will ever make them Anglo-Saxons but they are racially white and there is only ONE ethnic group in this country: Hispanic, which really means nothing except speaks (or tries to speak) Spanish.

White is code for NOT BLACK!. What’s funny is that people who look way more black than many in my family are actually white while we are still black.